In article , earl8131
@hotmail.com says...

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 12/6/12 10:21 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/6/2012 10:00 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote:

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just
close the
door in their face.
They are using the courts to enforce the constitution.

Show me where it says "freedom from religion"??

You have no understanding of the Constitution or the "separation"
clause, so why should anyone bother to "show" you a thing.
If we use your interpretation of the Constitution and the laws we may
end up with a tax lien on our property or we may even be sued by the
government for non-payment of taxes.


You should put the deed in you wife's name if you are going to screw the
government out of taxes you owe!

It is.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:42:38 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?

Yes. He also would want me to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. He didn't like deadbeats,
Krause.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:19:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?

He pays his taxes, unlike you.

How do you know that?

We know each other.

On 12/8/12 12:28 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:42:38 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?

Yes. He also would want me to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. He didn't like deadbeats,
Krause.


snerk

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:19:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?

He pays his taxes, unlike you.

How do you know that?

We know each other.

So.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:03:34 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:21:21 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools
or onto public facilities.

----------------------------

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.

What an anti-Constitution asshole, huh?

Forgot the link so you could see who I meant!

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slides...?1354836651271

Federal property, federal employee, conducting federal business.

On 12/8/2012 11:22 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 9:58 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 9:27 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote:
On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote
On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote:

Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up
nasty
posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at
Nativities
and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year
olds
poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie
Brown
Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing
else...


That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying
anyone. You
want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your
church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public
park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the
public schools.

Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses
teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't
favoring
one religion over another.

It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public
schools
or onto public facilities.

----------------------------

Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the
Atheists.

And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on
your own.


So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown
Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at
all...


It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot.

No it doesn't, asshole...


Sure it does. A Christmas tree has evolved to become the symbol of
Christmas, the alleged time of the birth of Jesus, a religious figure.
The tree is not a symbol of wintertime or the coming of the new year. It
is a Christian religious symbol, just like Jesus, for who it is named.
When the tree is put up in front of a public school or in a public park,
et cetera, the implication is that the government supports/sponsors that
religion. Such support is not Constitutional. It isn't my problem that
you are too stupid to understand the principle.

Oh, and for consistency's sake, I am opposed to the "national" Christmas
tree in downtown DC, along with any other religious symbolism
supported/sponsored by government. I don't think the POTUS should be
engaged in supporting such religious celebrations if they are
sponsored/supported by the government.

These beliefs have nothing to do with agnosticism or atheism, by the way.

You should write a letter to the prez-e-dent stating said opposition.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it,
but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes
reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More
importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on
others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious
there.
I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists
imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.


Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are.

Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you
are
at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists don't
give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to
impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on
anyone...there are no door to door atheist.

Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door
missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close
the
door in their face.

Cite?


-----------------

Can not help since you are intellectually lazy.

As expected, you have NOTHING.


---------------------------------

Nope, probably a better degree than you. I do not need to do your work.
You need to do a little work to defend your thesis.

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with
Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


-----------------------------

It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force
your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in
agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe
in your views, but their views are allowable also.

"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Califbill" wrote in message
...

GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule
wrote:

This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but
hopefully you'll get the
drift.

http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy

Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably
won't be the last.

====

Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and
probably you, share some confusion about the difference between
values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable
people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly,
it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others
and then accuse them of lacking "values".

Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I
don't consider the first
one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some
meaning. Now liberals,
especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is
inappropriate to try and impose
your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing
theirs. If you can't read
that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can
understand your comments.

Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but
likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And
marriage
has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the
bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses
in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be
Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20
witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state
involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same
sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your
lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but
do
not expect society to pay for your medical bills.


-----------------
dang Ipad and the spelling corrections.

You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a
lot of instances in the
bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto
with Texas, Alabama, and
other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will
probably invite me to a
'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham.


Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and
probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want
you to do?


-----------------------------------

You seem to be the hate filled asshole. Herring has his views, and as long
as he does not force them on others, that is OK. If you do not like the
idea of a gay partnership, then it is ok to pass on the ceremony. Same as
passing on most others ideas that are abhorrent to oneself.